RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-03578
            INDEX CODE:  102.07

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of rank (DOR) to the grade of major  be  changed  to  reflect
19 May 96.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is currently the only fellowship trained neurosurgeon in the active
duty Air Force yet he is the most junior  in  rank.   He  returned  to
active duty on 31 Jul 98 as a captain with his original DOR of  19 May
90.  He is  told  that  redeferment  places  an  automatic  hold  upon
promotions  until  the  individual  returns  to  active   duty.    His
colleagues who were deferred were automatically promoted as they  were
never on active duty.  This has caused some difficulty as to be on par
with his peers, he would have been promoted in 1995 or 1996.  This  in
essence has caused him to lose at least two years’  seniority  towards
his next rank.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Air Force on
16 Jun 86.

The Air Force indicated that the applicant was sponsored  through  the
Uniformed Services University of  the  Health  Sciences  (USUHS)  from
26 Aug 86 to 19 May 90.  He completed a Transitional Year  at  Wilford
Hall Medical Center from 1 Jul 90 to 30 Jun 91.  He was  selected  for
Neurosurgery residency training in a redeferred (unfunded) status from
1 Jul 91 to 30 Jun 98.  Applicant  requested  an  additional  year  of
unfunded training from 1 Jul 98 to 30 Jun 99 for  fellowship  training
in spine surgery; however, this request was denied by DPAME.   He  was
instructed to apply to the Graduate Medical Education (GME)  Selection
for continuation of training.  He did not submit  an  application  for
further GME and is currently assigned to Wilford Hall  Medical  Center
as  a  Neurosurgeon  effective  31 Jul  98  in  the  grade  of  major,
effective, and with a date of rank (DOR) of 3 Mar 99.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief,  Physician  Education  Branch,  AFPC/DPAME,  reviewed  this
application and indicated that while the applicant contends  that  his
colleagues who were deferred were automatically promoted as they  were
never on active duty, public law states a USUHS student must  complete
their first year of postgraduate training in an active duty  location.
The colleagues he is referring to are  recipients  of  the  Air  Force
Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP), unlike a USUHS  student
who is on active duty during medical school, a HPSP  student’s  status
during  medical  school  is  in  the  inactive   obligated   Reserves.
Constructive credit is awarded once an individual enters active  duty;
HPSP graduates can be, and frequently are, deferred from  active  duty
upon completion of medical school to obtain residency  training  (they
enter active duty upon completion of  their  training  program);  and,
USUHS students contractually must go to an active  duty  program  upon
completion of medical school, dictated by public law.   DPAME  further
states that the applicant’s understanding of the  redeferment  program
is incorrect.  There is no time limitation on the redeferment program.
 Historically, the Neurosurgery residency program has been offered  to
selects in an unfunded training status.  The length  of  the  training
program drives this decision.  If  this  residency  were  funded,  the
selectee would incur additional obligation for this training.  A  HPSP
student usually owes four years; if civilian sponsored would  incur  a
minimum of six additional years obligation, owing ten years when  they
completed their residency training.  If this program were  offered  in
another  Department  of  Defense  (DOD)  facility,  it  would  be  six
concurrent years, for a four-year HPSP student  this  results  in  two
additional years’ obligation, totaling  six  years.   Generally,  HPSP
students  are  not  interested  in  sponsored  training  due  to   the
additional  obligation.   Historically,  USUHS  graduates  and   field
applicants tend to decline unfunded training regardless of the  length
of the training program.  Their declination is  due  to  the  training
being unfunded.  They usually reapply to the selection  board  seeking
sponsorship so they will not lose time for  retirement  and  promotion
opportunity.  The rules, and in the  applicant’s  case,  knowledge  of
these rules, in effect at the time an individual  signs  his  contract
should be binding on both the Air Force and the individual.  Since the
applicant had signed his contract, his request has no merit.

A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation,  with  a  copy  of
applicant’s acceptance for unfunded training in Neurosurgery;  a  copy
of  his  separation  counseling  from  the  acting  Chairman  of   the
Department of Surgery; and, a copy of his “Statement of Understanding”
which  the  applicant  signed  outlining  the  contractual  commitment
between himself and the Air Force, is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and  provided  a  two-page
response, with inclusion  of  a  statement  from  his  commander  (see
Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Force Management Branch, AFPC/DPAMF2,  reviewed  this  application
and indicated that there are two Air Force promotion systems,  Defense
Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) and Reserve Officer Personnel
Management Act (ROPMA).  DOPMA concerns  promotions  for  active  duty
officers covered by Chapter 36 of Title 10, United States Code  (USC).
ROPMA promotions are for Reserve officers who are not on  active  duty
and carried on the Reserve Active Status List.   Chapter  1405,  Title
10, USC, covers  Reserve  promotions.   DPAMF2  concurs  with  DPAME’s
recommendation for disapproval.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of
“Statement of Understanding.”  AFI 36-2604, Service Dates and Dates of
Rank, paragraph 7.7, reinforced the “Statement of  Understanding”  the
applicant acknowledged on 2 May 91 and how the Air Force computed  his
DOR.  “An officer who separates from and  later  returns  to  extended
active duty (EAD) retains the current DOR he or she held  at  time  of
separation, if the following applies:  The officer is a Medical  Corps
(MC) officer returning to EAD after completing  a  military  leave  of
absence (redeferment) authorized by AFPC/DPAME.”

A  complete  copy  of  the  additional  Air  Force  evaluation,   with
attachments, is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of  the  additional  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to
applicant on 7 Jun 99 for review and response.  As of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that his DOR to the grade of major should be  changed.   His
contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these  assertions,
in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override   the
rationale provided by the Air Force.   We  therefore  agree  with  the
recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed  as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed  to  sustain
his burden that he has suffered  either  an  error  or  an  injustice.
Therefore, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  material  error  or  injustice;
that the application was denied without  a  personal  appearance;  and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission  of
newly  discovered  relevant  evidence   not   considered   with   this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 21 September 1999, under the  provisions  of  Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
                  Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member
                Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Dec 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Microfiche.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAME, dated 1 Feb 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, undated.
     Exhibit E.  Letter fr applicant, dated 1 Mar 99, w/atch.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPAMF2, dated 18 May 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 Jul 99.




                                   DAVID W. MULGREW
                                   Panel Chair